Is dating easier for straight women in SF than in NYC?

March 15, 2015 8:58 PM

This question is for straight women who have lived and dated in both San Francisco and NYC. I've heard anecdotally from a couple of women that dating was much easier for them in SF than in NYC, and I'm wondering if it's true generally or if it was just the luck of these particular individuals.

My impression of dating in NYC is that there are more women than men, and more really beautiful women in particular, so the men can be picky, making it difficult for normal non-model women. If you're straight and female and have dated in both cities: is it easier in San Francisco?

posted by sunflower16 to Human Relations (14 answers total)

This is one of the biggest cases of your mileage may vary possible.

You're mostly correct on the stereotype for New York but keep in mind that it's a stereotype. The number of women in a particular city doesn't tell you anything about how many women...like other women, moved there with their significant other, are attending one of the city's many colleges and are dating inside that scene, and so on. Sure, there are more models per capita but that says nothing about what guys are looking for.

I've noticed that moving to New York doesn't make a guy play the numbers game any more than he otherwise would, but more guys prone to playing the numbers game move to New York.

I can't speak on San Francisco, but I've heard that women pass around the same phrase about its dating scene as women at tech schools: "The odds are good, but the goods are odd."
posted by Spiced Out Calvin Coolidge at 9:33 PM on March 15, 2015 [4 favorites]

If anything, I've heard from my straight woman friends that they've actually found it harder in SF compared to other places they've been. There might be some selection bias at play here, though; I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between, in that it isn't really that different compared to other cities. That's just one data point, but YMMV.
posted by un petit cadeau at 10:01 PM on March 15, 2015

I had a pretty good time dating in SF in my late 20s. Never tried in NYC, but SF>LA as a data point.
posted by namesarehard at 10:21 PM on March 15, 2015

Best answer: Being familiar with both- yes it is easier for women in SF... or at least it was back when I was dating there. But I found it easiest in other parts of the U.S. that are less exciting.
posted by rancher at 11:08 PM on March 15, 2015 [1 favorite]

As a guy, I've found NYC much more enjoyable than SF to date. The "goods are odd" attitude definitely pervades, and it's offputting.
posted by kcm at 11:34 PM on March 15, 2015

Best answer: There have been a bunch of different articles written about this over the years, but suffice it to say data seems to indicate there are more single women on the East Coast than the West. Hence dating being easier for a single het-lady in San Fran over NYC.
posted by Anonymous at 5:09 AM on March 16, 2015

And the great thing about the map above is you can play with ages and see how that changes the distribution of singles!
posted by Anonymous at 5:12 AM on March 16, 2015

Best answer: So I found that I did a lot better in NYC than in SF. I was somewhat older in SF, though not terribly so. On the other hand, I am mixed race, and I got the impression my race was a much bigger problem for people in SF. There "I will date other races" mostly seemed to mean "I like Asian girls." I also found NY guys were more interested in things I like, like books and museums and staying as far away from Burners as possible. As always, all caveats apply.
posted by dame at 6:14 AM on March 16, 2015 [3 favorites]

Best answer: I've dated in both places, as a straight lady in my twenties and now thirties. I assumed that SF would be easier, because there are definitely more single men here. But I actually preferred NYC, partly because it seemed like there were more people who were better cultural fit for me (like dame says above- I'm also into books and museums and not Burning Man, so ymmv). I had no trouble meeting a plethora of great guys in NYC, and the bigger challenge was choosing between them. Certainly, not everyone is looking for a model; I dated a couple of people who *had* actually dated models, but ultimately wanted a better personality fit. As the map linked to above says, there are more single men than single women in NYC too, if you're in your 20s/30s.
posted by three_red_balloons at 9:52 AM on March 16, 2015 [2 favorites]

Best answer: I am originally from NYC, then joined the military and travelled all over. I have literally not found another city, in multiple countries, that is as hard to date in as NYC. There were a lot of great looking guys, but they were commitment-phobic and unable to be serious about anything. So I think you don't necessarily need SF, but you need maybe 'not NY'.
posted by corb at 9:56 AM on March 16, 2015 [2 favorites]

Best answer: My experience has been that it's much easier to find people to date casually in SF, but that men in NYC are much more interested in relationships. As everyone else said, YMMV.
posted by judith at 10:27 AM on March 16, 2015

Best answer: I've dated in both places but found it just as difficult. Men were equally as commitment phobic in SF as they are in NYC. I much prefer dating in NYC and found the men I met in SF were condescending and full of themselves. I think I prefer east coast people in general though. I am now in a LTR (with an east coast guy) in and couldn't imagine myself dating any of the men I met in SF long term.
posted by shesbenevolent at 11:53 AM on March 16, 2015 [1 favorite]

Best answer: It is easier in San Francisco, in terms of the ratio of men to women and the lower standards of beauty/personal maintenance for women. Also more dorky smart men who want a dorky smart girlfriend. :)

It is probably about the same level of difficulty, in terms of "finding someone who wants to settle down." SF has the same "man-child" phenomenon of many men who think they want to wait until they are 35ish and have made some money before they marry a hot 20-something. A lot of my guy friends in their late 20s seem to think that the idea of settling down/getting engaged is just SO far off and something they don't even want to worry about or think about right now. I think that you have to get out of big cities (or maybe move to the south/midwest?) to find cultures that are more oriented towards earlier marriage.
posted by amaire at 5:06 PM on March 16, 2015 [3 favorites]

Best answer: I haven't dated in San Francisco, but I have dated in Seattle (and Portland) which is pretty similar so maybe you'll accept my anecdote as well. New York City is definitely harder to date in that you definitely feel more pressure to maintain a higher standard of grooming (IMO that is the main difference between the coasts. Minus L.A., sort of, but even in L.A. there are "norms/plebs" and there really aren't so much in NYC) Also, there are so many people within walking distance that you really do feel like your options are limitless and this creates a sort of "oh well, over the next hill and around the next bend" mentality for both men and women. People in New York are more artsy/literate by far. I got a lot of polite and interesting but clearly not that invested/not trying that hard messages- people are just more relaxed, less desperate IMO. This means lots of fun and good conversation but definitely not an old-timey courtship/soulmate vibe. Seattle/Portland definitely feels waaaaay less glamorous in the looks department. Also there is more of a gender divide in the culture IMO (perhaps because of the uneven sex ratio) and men are noticeably more aggressive/competitive in a traditional "courtship" way- but also more likely to think all they have to do is make the money and impress you with their smarts.

I agree with amaire, though- Not until I moved back to Austin did I notice a distinct "urge to settle down" that starts in the late 20s. I do not think you can find that on either coast. But the cities of the Southwest are also good for women in the dating department and men are more likely to think marriage, sooner.
posted by quincunx at 11:43 PM on March 16, 2015 [3 favorites]